Is the example in section 6.4.4. of rfc3501 correct? It says:
S: A283 OK SEARCH completed
C: A284 SEARCH CHARSET UTF-8 TEXT {6}
C: XX
S: * SEARCH 43
S: A284 OK SEARCH completed
Shouldn't server first send a command
On 2004.03.24 15:33, Paul Jarc wrote:
Mark Crispin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It is not necessary to cater to cretins.
It is, however, necessary to avoid giving them wiggle room where
they
can point to the specification and claim that they are right and
everybody else is wrong.
Ok. AFAICS,
On 2004.03.24 17:27, Paul Jarc wrote:
Pawel Salek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Server that answers NO follows the specification but is useless.
If the message is, in fact, no longer available by the time FETCH
arrives, then I would instead call it honest.
I have impression two distinct issues
Hi,
I encountered a strange response to message part fetch command. It
looks like a bug in the server to me but I would like to get a second
opinion. Suggestions how to work around this problem are welcome too.
The problem is the server promises to send 23824 octects long literal
but sends 4040+
(1.4.6-2)
Is it enough to answer your question? I see NetIQ MailMarshal is
available in both SMTP and for Exchange variants.
Pawel
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Pete Maclean
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 8:20 AM
To: Pawel Salek; [EMAIL
On 09/29/2004 04:34:05 PM, Michael Wener wrote:
On Wed, 2004-09-29 at 09:42, Philip Guenther wrote:
Michael Wener [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
to do something that turns out to be a step away from the ultimate
goal is frustrating to all involved. There's a good chance that
I'm not frustrated.
seen similar problem? Is there anything that can be
done about it apart from upgrading the hardware?
Pawel Salek
___
Imap-uw mailing list
Imap-uw@u.washington.edu
https://mailman1.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/imap-uw
On 10/23/2008 09:01:56 PM, Mark Crispin wrote:
Why do you think the gmail's behavior breaks standard compliance?
For
me, it looks as in there was an system process concurrently
attached to
the mailbox that sends periodically EXPUNGE commands. Can you please
point out to the part of the
